Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

Hi Peter,

On 3/2/17 9:43 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> On 2/1/17 12:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> [ in the service of closing out this thread... ]
>>>
>>> Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
>>>> Finally, 0003-* is a Valgrind suppression borrowed from my parallel
>>>> CREATE INDEX patch. It's self-explanatory.
>>>
>>> Um, I didn't find it all that self-explanatory.  Why wouldn't we want
>>> to avoid writing undefined data?  I think the comment at least needs
>>> to explain exactly what part of the written data might be uninitialized.
>>> And I'd put the comment into valgrind.supp, too, not in the commit msg.
>>>
>>> Also, the suppression seems far too broad.  It would for instance
>>> block any complaint about a write() invoked via an elog call from
>>> any function invoked from any LogicalTape* function, no matter
>>> how far removed.
> 
> It looks like we are waiting on a new patch.  Do you know when you will
> have that ready?

It's been a while since there was a new patch or any activity on this
thread.

If you need more time to produce a patch, please post an explanation for
the delay and a schedule for the new patch.  If no patch or explanation
is is posted by 2017-03-16 AoE I will mark this submission
"Returned with Feedback".

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net